Critical Practice Issue 2

fsf^

Issue 2

cTit/ta

Critical Practice is a self-governing cluster of artists,
researchers and academics, hosted by Chelsea College
of Art and Design. We aim to encourage and engage
critical practice within art, the field of culture, and '
organization. This is issue 2 of our annual publication.

http://www.cri ti cal practi cechel sea .org

Welcome to Critical Practice: Issue 2

* Front cover: Critical Practice spidergram courtesey of Marsha.
Back cover: Vocabulaboratories Coordinated hy Marsha, co-authored hy Cinzia, Michaela and Marsha

«a

As part of Disclosures, an event organised by Gasworks in London, Critical Practice
was invited to contribute to The View From Here: after Open Congress, Saturday 29th
March 2008.

Critical Practice was asked to address specific issues:

The speakers will introduce the basis of their project and describe their own position within

it They will also outline where the project has taken its cue from, from the perspective of

recent media and contemporary art history. Led by Marina Vishmidt, the discussion that

follows will attempt to outline questions that were yet unresolved

at the end of the described projects, with particular scrutiny on the

involvement of contemporary art institutions and methodologies.

This offered a great opportunity to reflect on the genealogy of
Critical Practice - and what we might want to do now.
The Social Relations working group discussed how to respond; as
the representation of group, collective and collaborative practices
(open or otherwise) is a constituent issue for Critical Practice, we
decided upon a Brechtian multi-voiced presentation.

□ocvfn

□ O^On

DDO DD

□ on □□
na D DO

0<>0m
n a^na
an naa

□ ■ DDD

na D DD

Part One: heginnims contents

Ian and Trevor referred back to the Chelsea Wiki as part of

the history of Open Congress. *AJ!^l.l?S.!^...?.L.^}}.t..

presentation

i

Congress it's necessary to think back to
2004. Open source software was beginning

A slide show
To talk about the basis for Open covering each of the

four issues we were
asked to address,
. each slide 20

to prove itselt on the desktop m the torm seconds, each issue

of Firefox, and Wikipedia was beginning to show how ^ 5 sides.

large-scale, open collaborative practice could produce
valuable knowledge. ^ ~__. _"™i^ Blogs,

torrents, peer-to- talk briefly about

peer networks,

1.1 Part One: beginnings

1.2 Neil and Corrado

Open Congress itself
o 1.3 Marsha and Michaela

email, mobile address the

phones. There's unlimited access to other peoples stuff,
people are seemingly giving away their creative content

(and other people's). ^ -m This critical practice

hi stori ci sati on of
Open Congress, and
the emergence of

y^m activity, both
^^■" generous and

o 1.4 Cinzia and Robin
address the most
recent phase of
piratical, was at critical practice, in

relationship to art
i nsti tuti ons

odds with less free proprietary models of production and
distribution. Lawyer Lawrence Lessig was revealing how
the law was frantically trying to contain the cultural shift

of 'Free Culture'. ^ We believe art institutions were, and still

are, struggling with their relationship to these
changes. They have the habit of nurturing apparent
uniqueness within the cultural continuum.
Studying on the Fine Art BA at Chelsea College of Art, we felt
all at odds with the University's treatment of students - still very much
focused on the individual. If collaboration took place, it was someone's
responsibility to pick it apart; the examiner, student or tutor.

why is there such a bias toward the individual? The reluctance
to support non-individual practice is difficult to accept - it is not for lack
of theory. Confounded by theorist Nicholas Bourriaud, many of our peers
separated curation and 'post production' from their work as artists.

The wider cultural and technological climate provided a lot of
impetus for collaboration. ^^^^^^m We were

interested in exploring
whether a notion of
collaboration could

extend to art and community. Were people willing to risk what they could achieve on
their own in favour of working on something less tangible with other people? We wanted
to take this a step further and ask 'What would a peer-led degree show look and feel
like?' That is - one that did not attempt to mask the informal and fluid exchange of ideas
between students on the course, tutors, the building and the world at large (!)

■ - . We started, as all well-meaning open art practices do, with

■ some meetings to gauge interest and discuss ideas. We set up the
^^E=— t chelseawiki - intended to build upon the general open vibe in the year
U^r~ group. The wild became a site for minutes, lectures, notes, theses,

photographs of art works... In part it was a response against Blackboard, the institutions
own virtual, proprietary 'learning' environment, g The wild

was obviously a

powerful tool, but
it didn't work for
everyone. A barrier to some was the fact that all content placed on it was licensed
under the General Public License. However, for those that understood its implications,
they realised it helped to cement and record the collaboration and emergent practices
between us. Come April 2005, with theses completed

I " ■\* 5 (of course, available on the wiki), we were now
I ^ _ 1S|[ - concentrating on putting theory into practice in the
form of the degree show. Uncomfortable with the easy
container of 'a group' we observed a business tradition of initials - first names though :-)
After much talk we, Darrel_Ian_Tom_Trevor_Wei-Ho (DITTW),
wrote a set of Founding Principles describing what was commonly held
to be important in an 'open' approach to art practice.

Actually, when it came to scaling our

a

activities it became clear that our openness was false
- our principles and decisions were heavily codified. We
were encouraged to unpick our informal 'clan' values
and negotiate a common language with our new partners (a group of first year helpers).
The degree show was a fantastic affair, with a mess of ideas
and activities encompassing social spaces with free internet access,
gallery activities for families, children and college staff, a seminar, even
an Open Congress meeting... ^^^^^^^ It was

important that this
was collaboratively
authored, and that we
were confident in making the various relationships explicit within the work. For those
interested, the wild provided the background. Around

this time, some of the
staff at Chelsea were
floating the idea of

Open Congress. The congress seemed a good opportunity for us to continue working
together beyond the degree show, and by nature of it being open we were free to get
involved and help shape it. We will now hand over to Neil and Corrado to give you more
background on the Congress itself...

^-o

»

Open Congress

Neil and Corrado talk briefly about Open Congress

Welcome to Open Congress. As you heard from Trevor and Ian,
some of us at Chelsea (mostly students, but some staff and researchers)
became interested in collaborative art practice, - in issues of access
and participation, organizational structures, the impact of digital
technologies, and social exchanges like generosity and friendship,
r Jt ^ J ^^Bi We recognized that these themes provide tools to enable us
I ■ !■■ ^La ^^ think through the conventions of art's authorship, its ownership
I "*t ^ and distribution; they give us a critical purchase. (NB what is a 'critical

■k purchase'? - a way of holding or gripping something, with curiosity and

critique in mind ) ^ ^^' -- Many of these themes seem to connect

IT" I directly to what we knew of the development of
Free/Libre and Open Source software - FLOSS
- and more generally copyleft licensing and the
Free Culture movement. So we began to wonder if, and how, these FLOSS development
methodologies could map onto or into the creative practice that we were interested in.
So a core group began to research, convene and discuss.
I ^ ^^^^Q We began to see how issues of collaboration, self-organization,

^™ JB ownership, access and participation were emerging in all manner
I jfljid^l of cultural practices. We learnt about initiatives calling for open-
^^^m E source democracy, 'open' law and knowledge projects, about 'open'
organizational and business models. ^ We realized that it

would be disingenuous - yet
again - to separate art and its
institutions off from these
other social forces and processes, so we tried seriously to mesh with and engage our
research where we recognized parallel or related drives. ^ _ ^±^ J ^^^^Q In

April 2004, we
approached
Tate Britain

with the idea of a conference using FLOSS as its starting point. We made an internal bid
to the Research Committee at Chelsea College of Art for funding. We were eventually
successful and secured £10,000 to support the project. In January 2005 we set up our
website Open Congress using [l] free suite of tools, and we started a wiki.
'^ ^ BHHK Through using the wiki, we began to engage with a wider

I ^U^^Si^O ^^l^t^d community, both on and off line. We also began to mesh with
dk^^Qpj other organizations that were using a similar suite of software tools and
HH^^^Hfl shared similar themes. We became attached, related to and inspired
by Season of Media Arts London [SMAL] - soon to become node. London - and learnt
enormously from the collaborative student initiative that Ian and Trevor described
chelseawiki. jr J ^^^^Q There was a powerful moment when at one

meeting it dawned on us that it would be disingenuous
to organize a conference about issues arising from FLOSS

development without consistently and ethically embodying them - we should also
conduct ourselves in an open, transparent and accountable way. So, this is where it
got very, very exciting, but rather messy. ^ "^ "gf^l ^^^^Q We used

guidelines from a website
openorganizations.org
on how to practice as an
'open' organization. We tried to learn to be open, transparent and accountable in all we
did, to devolve decision making, and use the notion of rough consensus' to make those
decisions. We evolved the idea of holding public meetings - meetings 'open' to anyone
who got to hear about them at places in London like the Royal Festival Hall, a private
members club, a studio, an exhibition, a cafe at Chelsea, etc.

And we started to try and post all details, agendas, meeting notes and action points
on our wiki, so we could build a collaborative record, for all to see, of the process we
were actively engaged in. |||f< ^^f. ^ ^^^^^B ^t these large and lively, or

small and intimate meetings we began to
draw up lists of possible participants and
to generate themes of related interests
that could help us structure our conference; these began to coalesce as Governance,
Creativity and Knowledge.

And we began to think of them as ecologies, as meshed networks of participants and
resources. We also realized that a conventional academic form of conference - famous
speakers, passive audience - was inappropriate for our content, we needed something
much more open and participatory.

The collaboratively-developed conference became a congress with multiple strands,
with simultaneous talks, presentations and workshops. ^^^^ -ff- The

other side was
our interface
with our

partner, Tate Britain. Tate's role slowly withdrew from actively developing the congress
(except for the media department) to being its infrastructural host. Overworked Tate
staff slipped into cruise control and with all their experience set about organizing a
conference, with Critical Practice as the content provider.

In June 2005 we were beset with scheduled demands to meet
Tate print deadlines with lists of confirmed speakers, technical needs
and conference packs. What we actually had at that moment was a
swirling mass of possible participants nominated through our wiki, an
innovative structure with multiple strands in different locations in the museum and a
decision making process that was (at times) indeterminate.

Tate's top-down management hierarchy needed us to fit a template, and we couldn't.
We probably appeared badly organized and incapable of meeting deadlines. Actually we
were differently organized and, when deadlines loomed, acted with enormous collective
energy and precision. This made our relationship - with the best will in the world -
difficult and fraught for both parties. H^^^'^ t^^^J In July 2005 we began

to invite people from our wiki-
1^ ^^^Q generated participant lists.

Some were self selected, others had made proposals, and some had been collaboratively
nominated, many were international.

How could we divide the budget to accommodate these differences?
whom should we pay?

And who should decide whom to pay? ^ ^ m^^ HIBWBiP At one astonishing

meeting, where we were
struggling to agree on how
to allocate our financial
resources equitably, we decided to post our then total budget on-line, on our wiki.
It sort of worked, but many ethical questions still haunt us, some of which we
addressed at the ResourceCamp (also part of Disclosures 2008).

As the congress loomed, the mismatches of organization practice between Tate,
ourselves and sixty or so individuals became ever more apparent.

Although what also became clear is that 'open' organizations are exceptionally good
in a crisis.

Wireless London, with internal support from the Tate on-line curator (who also in-
kind sponsored webcasting and archiving most of the congress events) networked all
the relevant Tate spaces simply and without fuss.

The formerly SMAL had become Node. London and with Cybersalon and Open
Congress shared international speakers, technology (for the October season of events),
and raised additional funds. ^ ^ Throughout the organization

^ of Open Congress we tried to conduct
■ ^^ ourselves in an open, transparent and
accountable way, and we failed on many
accounts. Much of our organization was shambolic, many of our invited participants
felt the effects of this as we struggled with deadlines and schedules, and some invited
institutional participants withdrew.

Our interpretation of this is that certain institutionalized individuals need fairly
constant reassurance of who they are dealing with, and a familiar structure into which
they will fit. Something we were not able to provide. ^^H^^^| **" But

the opposite
and much more
positive effect is

that many participants self organized, invited others, curated their own panels within
the congress structure, proposed workshops and installed stalls in the Clore Gallery
Foyer at Tate. We organisers of Open Congress, became Critical Practice.

Organizing and developing a project using FLOSS-inspired practices was a very sharp
learning curve, and (mostly) a thrilling process. A conference became a congress, ideas
were genuinely contested and developed, and there was no audience, only participants...

fidk

Historicisation

Marsha and Michaela address the historicisation of Open Congress, and the emergence
of Critical Practice

I In what ways is an engagement with Open Congress
emblematic of our current age of participation?

what is the relationship between the participation propelling
Critical Practice's collaborative enterprise, and recent developments in
technology and culture? ^^^^^^^| ^^^^Q There are many ways to address

these two questions.

We could, for example, expand on Ian and
Trevor and Neil and Corrado's reflections and
discuss Critical Practice in relation to Web 2.0 technologies, arguing perhaps, that the
group's "wikification" demonstrates general trends in social networking technologies.
^^^^ Or, we could situate Critical Practice in what curators and
critics like Claire Bishop and Maria Lind have called "the social turn'
and "the collaborative turn" respectively.

We could say
that projects
like this one

— like the cluster's participation in Disclosures — aptly demonstrate the ways in which
artist groups are using social situations to produce dematerialized, anti-market and
politically-engaged projects - projects that champion the old avant-garde edict to merge
art and life. ^^^^^^^| ^HBMI Alternatively, we could locate Critical Practice in

relation to new media (forward slash) media studies.

We could discuss the group's interest in digital
technology, not so much as an end in itself— not because
we are mystified by pressing buttons or laying cables — but because by using new
technologies as tools for collaborative art making, we also seek to understand the new
and unexpected ways in which these forms are shaping subjectivity.

^^^^Q Certainly, these are all useful vectors for understanding
Critical Practice within our current cultural context. But instead of
further exploring any one of these foci, we would like to take a slightly
different approach and address our personal relationship to and
understanding of participation as creative practice in Critical Practice. In particular,
we would like to discuss the inter subjective space created through our collective
participation and how it operates as THE MEDIUM for creative production within the

[gaged projects -

E3

group.

How can we discuss our identities as second
generation Critical Practitioners and research students at
Chelsea?

How have we "received" Critical Practice?

By way of osmosis?

By way of intimations and tacit practices?

More recently

Cinzia and Robin address the most recent phase of Critical Practice, in relationship to
art institutions

or big galleries .

'reputation' in more critical circles like here.

what questions were left open by Open Congress?
The answer seems to be 'all of them'. Critical Practice has its roots in
these questions and in finding ways to keep asking them. Some of us
discovered Critical Practice through the Node. London list in 2006, when
the Atelier Trans Pal event in the courtyard of Chelsea College.
^^^^B This event had not been pinned down, because its form and
content were being contested live and in real-time
This remains a core quality of Critical Practice - a capacity to activate
situations in which it is possible to think together - to be critical and to
be self-reflective, through an understanding of OPENNESS.

Or, as Robin put it: 'Being self-reflective is our excuse to allow the event to collapse.'
^^^^^ while the personnel and organizational structures partly
changed, the 'name' Critical Practice has been around for a few years.
This gives credibility to our 'brand'. It is good to be recognizable -
especially when dealing with large institutions such as universities,Tate
^^^^Q But then again we do not want to be
as recognizable a brand as, say, Chanel. 'Fame'
would be counterproductive, as it makes it easy
to be instrumentalised - and it would ruin our

taken seriously. But in
trying to fulfil certain
obligations - either

existing or perceived ones - of the institutions we work with, there is a danger of self-
subduing. In our anticipation of institutional expectations, we might be in danger of
becoming an institution like those we are working with.

To keep
a more
radical

image, we would prefer to think of ourselves as a bunch of pirates. Making contracts and
treaties with big Empires and small shipping companies, but only as tactical elements
in our bigger plans :) We work together only on the basis of a set of guidelines, retaining
the subversive unpredictability of a random KmT^^^B crew. ^^^^Q We

ARE an institution
as we institute
practices. We try to

be sensitive to issues of self-governance in order to remain a healthy organisation. Soon
after Atelier Trans Pal, Ian led an Open Organisation workshop, where we explored in
depth the Open Organisation guidelines and found ways of inhabiting them.

^^^^Q Perhaps we could identify the workshop as a re-articulation of
our WE.

9

k

basis or a set or i

m

We remain a fluid cluster, with some members flowing in and out. The Open
Organisation guidehnes remain guidehnes, not a structure we fit into.
We try to nurture this openness and sometimes we find more playful ways of asking
questions.

In the unforgettable Song Workshop led by Mister Solo, we used the process of trying
to compose and perform a Critical Practice song as a catalyst for self-reflection.

^^^^Q In a number of ways, the Aims and Objectives are the backbone
around which the cluster functions and they are themselves always in
the process of being revised. W^^B£^ ^^^^9 As we

are constantly in
the process of re-
negotiating our

working practices, and remain open to any new collaborator in our network,
rather than an institution,

we strive to be more like Pippi Longstocking's gang,
which sometimes consists of just Pippi,
or also her two best friends,

but is always open to one more kid joining the action and sometimes their adventures
involve all the children of the village...

http://criticalpracticechelsea.org/wiki/index.php/lntroduction

10

Critical Practice

and Me

rEtacha rya

757

ROBbN

Lately I was nominated for (and then won) an award for young Swiss artists :)
I had the opportunity to present one new artwork of which I am the 'author' in
a large collective exhibition during Art Basel 2008. But, as I was writing an artist
statement I realised that I am unable to talk about "my" artistic development, without
talking about Critical Practice...

I have been working with and as part of Critical Practice since 2005, 'joining' in
the middle of the process of organising Open Congress. At the same time, I organised
with other students discussions that eventually grew into the series of events collide/
COLLABO, which also became connected with Critical Practice. The boundaries of the
fields of activity were, and are not that clear to me. And so I see Critical Practice and
me as intrinsically connected: not only in the sense that Critical Practice projects
and events are an expression of the kind of work I do/like to do, but also because
my experiences with Critical Practice have radically changed my way of working in
everything I am involved in. I participated in the live-public
writing of our Aims and Objectives (and because they are
wikified and flexible, I can change them at will. Even now!).
For me, these Aims and Objectives are more than a set of
guidehnes, they are an aspiration, an expression of ideals -
which I anyway inhabit - and therefore strive to fulfil in any
environment I happen to be. While not having to 'abide' to
them, like you abide to a law.

Personnel

In the Critical Practice session during collide/COLLABO,
when we worked on the Aims and Objectives live and in public,
I talked about the organisational structure. I tried to make
an example of the squat I used to frequent back in Berne:
anyone present in the building at any one time was a 'member'
of the 'organization', and responsible for its running.

This fluidity of personnel, and the ensuing transferability
of Critical Practice has always fascinated me - the possibility
that people working towards the same Aims may be using
different Objectives, or a different language altogether, and

that this might still constitute 'critical practice' When I

made the comparison to a bunch of pirates or the gang of
Pippi-Longstockings, during our Brechtian introduction at
Disclosures, this is the kind of flexibility I had in mind.

%

[1 ] I am referring
to Reithalle - in the
mid 90s. You could
bring your own food
to the restaurant,
stay overnight if
you were from far
away... The IKUR
( Interessengemeinschaft
Kulturraum Reitschule,
i.e. the The Community
of Interested in the
Reitschule) was defined
as the persons present
i n the building... Of
course there was a
general assembly where
few showed up and
decisions were made
and most believed that
group to be the IKUR,
though really they were
the IKUR themselves.

11

Critical Practice and Other Nodes

when working within other networks, or even on my own I feel an un/wiUing
'representative' of Critical Practice: as the projects we do together stay in my mind,
and inform my practice and conduct. I try to feed into these new networks as much as
possible from our experiences. In such moments for me Critical Practice is more of a
mindset, and I become an embodiment of CP... Now I know this sounds eerily scary, and
smells of brainwash - but maybe I don't mean mindset, more of a pair goggles, which
you can choose to wear, or not!

Now I am also a member of Greenpeace, but sometimes I am a bit more peaceful and
a bit greener than other times - only that this isn't reflected in my membership status.
As long as I pay my membership fee. The big difference is that, as a co-author and editor
of the Aims and Objectives I feel much more of an obligation to them, than towards some
pre-set party line.

when working within the Manifesta 6 (M6DIII) network in Berlin or in Cyprus,
I noticed that many people shared similar ideals to Critical Practice - especially,
the importance of keeping culture in the public domain. Many cultural operators
realise we cannot afford to make compromises regarding accessibility, environmental
sustainability etc... And if I have to compromise, at least I become reflexive of my mode
of working, in relation to our Aims and Objectives, or rather, my ideals.

For my latest exhibition in Basel, I worked alone - as I am the only Swiss National
amongst us - and I had to show my 'personal' work. This obviously doesn't exist, as I
usually make collaborations in networks like Critical Practice. So I see my work 'The
ROBIN™ currency' as an appropriate answer to the context of an art-competition where
I am valued' personally as an author. In exchange for the value that Critical Practice
has added to me as an artist over the years, I promised to donate a ROBIN™ (the sum
of which is to be negotiated at a future CP meeting). In this way, I try to reflect the
complex collaborative value exchanges that take place in "my" - and really all - artistic
production. Even if it is obscured by the nature of authorship-based structures, such as
national competitions.

In working away from CP, I almost always am extending CP, becoming myself a node
of connection in my relations to other personnel. And as other parts of CP are doing the
same, each one of them is extending the network and bringing it into other fields (art,
theory, games, economics, IT, cooking).

But writing, talking, discussing with CP, travelling around, meeting people and
talking with them and hearing how they share similar ideals - in some cases they'd even
heard about CP - and seeing how our idea(l)s are reflected even on other points of our
society, more distant to me - I find myself extremely happy to be embedded in a mental
mindset that permeates groups, scenes, organizations, nations and fields of practice -
how could I then be lonely? Even if in some case I might actually be alone in executing a
specific project, if I can see its role in practically establishing a criticality, I am working
together with 'millions of participants'.

http://www.therobincu rrency.com/

12

Mike Reddin's stall

attracted and maintained the
attention of some passersby
who seemed reluctant to
engage directly with the
Market. Mike invited people
to consider ethical ways
in which we should, and
could "pay for things".
On offer was a choice of
five ethical questions to
explore, starting with a
'medical dilemma' designed
to find out what value
we bring to situations
of resource-choice.
Encouraging participants to
ask for further pieces of
information, Mike tried to
elicit the common ground
which people bring to such
decision making - or see if
they could come to common
decisions via very different
routes. To fully participate
in the transaction meant
investing deeply held beliefs
and unveiling personal
val ues.

Reflections
the Market

deas

In the , Mike

Knowlden invited participants
to discuss their habits of
domestic food consumption
and wastage, considering the
void of waste as a potential
resource, from which both
economic and non-economic
value might be recovered.
The stall functioned as a
site of initial discussion
and exchange, a web of
conversations in which
strategies for dealing with
leftovers were aired. Lists
of these foods, nascent
recipes and approaches
then formed an inventory of
possibilities. The projecfs
second stage was enacted
at the Outpost Gallery in
Norwich where Mike, along
with Josh Pollen, spent a day
creating recipes inspired
by the source material of
the market. The resultant
food was provided free to
the gallery's visitors. This
development provides the

Coordinated by Isobel Bowditch and Trevor Giles
Reflections by Cinzia Cremona

The London Festival of Europe 2008

How to Make Europe Dream? A Cultural Congress,

15th and 16th March 2008

12.30 - 7pm, The Banquet Hall and the Red Room, Chelsea
College of Art & Design, London.

London is potentially a heart for a European cultural
avant-garde. It is one of the most culturally active and
cosmopolitan places in Europe. Yet it is also the capital
of what is often portrayed as being one of the most
Euro-sceptic of nations. As part of the London Festival of
Europe 2008, European Alternatives will invite the most
innovative of young European cultural organisations,
artists and writers to London for a Congress on the
future of artistic culture in Europe.

The Congress featured four round tables and two
public evenings over two days.

13

Some notes on the process

If you google the philosopher 'Bernard Steigler' you
are directed to David Barison's amazing film the The Ister,
you can click- through to the website of Thinking Through
Practice, a project connected with Critical Practice and
co-ordinated by Isobel Bowditch and Andrew Chesher.
The organisers of the London Festival of Europe 2008
Niccolo Milanese and Lorenzo Marsih did indeed google
'Bernard Steigler' and followed the link to Critical

Practice. We eventually became a
partner in the The London Festival
of Europe 2008, hosting philosopher
Bernard Stiegler's inaugural lecture
Towards a European Way of Life
and How to Make Europe Dream; a
Cultural Congress.

Within Critical Practice, open-organizational
guidelines and wiki technology inform a peer-led
approach to cultural production. Self-selected Working
Groups take responsibility for tasks, projects or events.
Those who wish to be involved convene to make
decisions through rough-consensus - participation
is fluid, often creating difficulties in tracing the
collaborative processes, as a fluid 'we' is a complicated
entity. Following the decision to host and contribute to
the The London Festival of Europe 2008, we struggled
with ideas of 'Europe' and our relation to this concept
as cultural producers. One possibility was to refocus a
previous project. Beyond The Free Market (BTFM), which
researched the ramifications of capitahst economic
policies for food production and consumption. Through
its investigation of waste and food politics, BTFM had
already grappled with the dynamic micro and macro
effects of European policies. But within Critical Practice,
there seemed to be a more general interest in finance,
economies, ecologies, and how they are enacted - a
powerful undercurrent that shaped our eventual
contribution to the Congress.

We invited some economic 'experts' for dinner to
discuss some of the possibilities offered by our patchwork
knowledge of economics and economies. Federico
Campagna and Mary Robertson unravelled with us some
fundamentals of 'classic' and 'alternative' economical

basis for resources that are
being collated at the Waste
Proposal Unit page on our
wiki.

Facilitated by Marsha
Bradfield with the help of
Mary Anne Francis, Kelly
Large, Katrine Hjelde, Jem
Mackay and Helena Capkova,

provi ded
a place/space for delegates
and marketers to sit and
chat. The Cafe was also a
focal point for Ecoes, a
collaborative video project
that uses Actor-Network
Theory to explore the
Market of Ideas as a web of
heterogeneous interests.
Project facilitators Jem
and Marsha circulated
through the market, talking
to marketers, delegates
and visitors about their
experience of the event.
Since the Market, Ecoes has
coalesced into a dynamic
working group. Through face-
to-face meetings, email
exchanges and online forums,
Jem, Marsha, Cinzia, Michaela
and Corrado are developing
collaboratively edited
documentation of the Market,
an exhibition and panel
discussion for the Networks
of Design conference
(Falmouth, September 2008)
and a full-blown research
investigation on the
implications of Actor-Network
Theory.

For the

stall, Cinzia Cremona (with
the help of Davina Drummond)
offered a thought experiment
of sorts, which required
each 'visitor' to invest
in a momentary personal
relationship. Asked to select
their favourite TV advert,
participants were invited
to explore the emotions,
feelings, needs, desires and
ideas it evoked for them.
The thought experiment
consisted in ^converting''
these emotions from needs

14

waiting to be fulfilled
(passive) into a form of
capital for each individual
to invest into productive
activities (active). A paper
bow was handed out to
materialise the currency of
the emotions and to assist
the transformation of needs
from abstract, induced
feelings to concrete, owned
resources. This has prompted
an ongoing discussion about
the bow's carrier function
within a network of elements,
and on how some participants
have emotionally invested in
thei r bows.

Trevor Giles developed the

stall with think-
do tank the New Economics
Foundation. Their 'Happy
Planet Index Calculator'
provided the impetus to
reflect on personal well-
being and to speculate on
economies of well-being,
both national and personal,
rather than Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) and prosperity.
Visitors were invited to test
their happiness using a short
test devised by Ed Deiner

and information on
was used to introduce the
issue of moral responsibility
toward basic human need
within developed societies.

Katelyn Toth-Fejel took
inspiration from the '70s
permaculture movement for

her

stall. The permaculture
movement was started in
Australia to impart holistic
systems thinking into
agriculture. Katelyn operated
a mobile dyeing station
using natural techniques and
materials to alter available
items.

For his intervention-stall,
Tom Trevatt placed a stack
of A2 prints of an image

of , the son of

Benazir Bhutto and heir to

systems, and Federico ultimately participated in the event
itself. Between the dinner and the following meeting, the
image of a non-competitive market began to form.

what is cultural about r . j
economics f A Market of Ideas

Markets are good at convening and distributing
resources. Based on the model of the ancient bazaar, our
non-competitive market constituted an experiment in
the co-production and distribution of knowledge. Critical
Practice invited artists, anthropologists, economists
and others to activate 'stalls' distributed throughout
the grand banqueting hall of Chelsea College of Art and
Design. This enabled the previously passive congress
audience of the London Festival of Europe to become a
noisy milling crowd, animatedly transacting knowledge
and experience. The Market of Ideas challenged the lazy
institutionalised model of knowledge transfer - in which
amplified 'experts' speak at a passive audience - and
offered instead an engaged and distributed peer-to-peer
exchange within the congress.

The project has its theoretical roots in Bruno Latour's
performance of Actor-Network Theory. According to
Latour, connectors are the vehicles that carry the 'truth
condition' of association. They are
not external binding conditions,
but composites of individual
behaviour. From this point of view,
we imagined economies and culture
as connectors, and our market as a
composite of composites.

g

15

The Market

A linear description can barely convey the complexity
of the event. Makeshift units of tables and chairs
constituted points of activity - the 'stalls' - animated by
a variety of individuals, technologies and intentions. The
tools that mediated the transactions ranged from post-it
notes to data projectors, posters to hair driers, screen-
printing to coffee, and lap-tops to recipes. Whilst some
roamed and filmed, others moved from stall to stall,
engaged and transacting.

On Reflection

The Market of Ideas left stall holders and participants
with the general feeling of a rough and interesting rub
between the Congress and the Market itself: the Congress
seemed to dream Europe via well-rehearsed theoretical
assertions about the other in the form of experts, panels
and passive audience, whereas the Market embodied
a generous, peer-to-peer co-production of knowledge
and experience. Two very intense hours gave everybody
a taste of the potential of the Market-format, but not
enough space to unravel the ideas put forward in each
stall. The time constraints and some lack of thought
to the aesthetics of the stalls were the source of some
frustration for some participants. Nevertheless,
the Market seems a successful form for knowledge
production and exchange, and could be usefully deployed
for other ideas, themes and projects.

her title, on the floor near
an ''unmade' stall. Henry
Proctor paid Getty Images
for the right to produce the
posters. He was contracted
to certain limitations
regarding its distribution:
the image has a print run
limited to 10,000; it may
only be distributed for
one month and must not be
reproduced digitally. On the
reverse of the print was an
outline of the contract. As
the month license was already
expired at the time of the
Market, any distribution of
the image broke Proctor's
agreement with Getty - the
image is activated legally
as well as politically. The
moment the unguarded image
is picked up. Proctor will
have broken his agreement
with Getty, and the person
taking it will then become
complicit in a crime. The
'stall' put into question
the nature of exchange, the
position of the 'customer',
the marketplace itself and
how one negotiates the
language of commerce and
freedom of information.

Offering a more traditional
interpretation of the
link between commercial
transaction and exchange
of ideas, Robert Dingle
invited a professional

, to engage customers
in meaningful conversation
as he shaved them and cut
their hair. Maintaining
the tradition of serving
only gentlemen, Daniel
disappointed many eager
visitors and, in true Actor-
Network spirit, highlighted
how some transactions are
directed by external factors.

was a stall manned by
anarchist and anthropologist
David Graeber, perhaps best
known for his book Towards
an Anthropological Theory
of Value: The False Coin
of Our Own Dreams. For the

16

Market, David evolved a
draft 'typology' of some 24,
mostly non-commercial, social
transactions. The typology
was used to structure
exchanges about the
possibility of transactions
without incurring debt, or of
investing without regard for
a future return.

Joe Balfour with economists
Federico Campagna and
Francesca Papa contributed

the very lively

. The
stall proposed to discuss
the A B C of a new approach
to social economics: the
mix of Artists, Business
and Communities. This
meant connecting the
Artists Placement Group's
assimilation of ^socially
engaged practice' by art
institutions, with ®TMark
and Netart's tactical use of
corporation tools enacted by
bottom-up communities, and a
new perspective in marketing
- that a social community
can act like an entrepreneur,
as in the example of
Parkour. The dialogue is
continuing at http://www.
corporationdotcomm.blogspot.
com.

transactions focused on how
the present circumstances
of participants can be
translated and made visible
through the logic of
accounting. Through the
means of pastels and black
paper a conversation takes
place. What is '*an invisible
hand', a ^national economy'
or a '^market force'? Arthur
Edwards worked with passers-
by to explore perceptions
of economics derived from
the imagery of graphs, words
and mantras, and the values
inculcated through their
repeti ti on.

As Critical Practice, we have benefited enormously
from working within an open format like that offered by
the market/bazaar. We were stimulated to reflect on the
nature of 'competition' and on how the stalls and Ideas
competed for the attention of the milling crowd. This
connected beautifully with Bernard Stiegler's warning in
his lecture - that to pay attention is a way of investing in,
or nurturing the object of your attention.

We convened a few days after the Market for an
informal debriefing session, which, with hindsight, we
wish we had structured more rigorously. Enthusiasm
and deadlines pressed us to move on to our next
commitment; a Brechtian presentation (see p.2) and
ResourceCamp for Disclosures (see p. 20) only a week
after the London Festival of Europe. The structure and
themes of the Market of Ideas and the ResourceCamp echo
one another, both events enabling the heterogeneity of
Critical Practice to be truly productive.

Confident in the potential of the non-competitive
market format. Critical Practice aims to develop the idea
further into an independent event with more attention
to the aesthetics of the stalls and more time to transact.
Some suggestions are included in the list of Big Ideas for
08/09 (see p.25)

http://criticalpracticechelsea.org/wiki/index.php/
London_Festival_of_Europe

17

On Association

Trevor Giles and Cinzia Cremona

An attempt at thinking through some of the ideas presented by Bruno Latour in
the lecture Another European Tradition: traceabihty of the social and the vindication
of Gabriel Tarde at the London School of Economics (LSE) in February 2008. The ideas
seemed to resonate with the informal reasoning for a Market of Ideas (see p.l3)

If, with Latour, we look at what is generally described as the 'social' as a process of
'association', then culture, as one of a number of connectors - religion, law, science,
technology, politics, organization, fiction, etc - is performative. Culture produces
associations and 'subjects in progress' (Julia Kristeva) in the act of producing itself.
Rather than an entity (or something more than the sum of its parts), think of 'the
social' as a composite, a collective comprised of component monads (individuals). In
other words, "the whole is never bigger than the part, but is the part itself expressed in
a certain intensity and connected differently" (Latour, as accurate a quote as possible).
From a scientific and philosophical point of view, the 'structure' of associations is an

effect of distance - a perspective. The closer we look, the

more clearly we can discern the actors and mediators that
transform the composite. Moreover, Actor-Network-
Theory (ant) understands 'structure' as a verb, not as a
noun, as the process is never completed - the figurations of
associations remain temporary and in flux. Also, 'distance'
can be "distance in time as in archeology, distance in space
as in ethnology, distance in skills as in learning." (Bruno
Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-
Theory 2005 p.80)

Within Critical Practice, we appreciate the value,
reflected in Latour's position, of a perspective that shifts
back and forth between the composite/collective and its
components. "An actor is also always a network." (John Law,
Notes on the Theory of Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and
Heterogeneity 1992, p.4). This is one aspect of the process of
self-reflection we sought to enact within the London Festival
of Europe and its approach to culture.

Culture is empowered in some sense to be whatever it
does, when we enact economics and culture in relation to
each other, we reflect the complexity of the reciprocal effects
of economics, culture and a variety of connectors at work
[2] . This activity is not lost on economists who, according
to Bruno Latour, and also Tim Harford, for various reasons
tend to work with models rather than practice or evidence

[1^ Within this
composite of 'the
connected' each
monad (individual) is
performative, determined
by its connections,
layered competences,
and the great number
of characteristics one
integrates from one's
environment. Moreover,
Latour considers
his ''actor' to be a
placeholder for '*actor-
network': "An actor-
network is what is
made to act by a large
star-shaped web of
mediators flowing in
and out of i t . It is
made to exist by its
many ties: attachments
are first, actors are
second." {Bruno Latour^
Reassembl 1 ng the Social:
An I ntroduction to
Actor-Network-Theory
2005 p. 217) Within
Critical Practice we
could interpret these
components as values
binding individuals.

18

(empirically flawed as science). Analysing this within the
field of anthropology of economics, Donald MacKenzie
suggests that markets are therefore performative - made by
economists through the performance of values - and thereby
produce values, cultures and economics through their
temporary figurations.

Differing models of economy are informed by differing
values. Transposing this to culture, is it necessary to
propose Ideas in an effort to influence the structure of the
composite? If culture is a network of associations, of ideas in
constant flux [3], do we as cultural practitioners (and other
'monads') experience a similar agency to that of economists?
This discussion provided the background to our engagement
with the London Festival of Europe and our Market of Ideas.

According to Latour, connectors are the vehicles that
carry the 'truth condition' of association. They are not
external binding conditions (as sociologist Emile Durkheim
thought), but composites of individual behaviour. From
this point of view, we imagine our market as a composite
of composites. Each stall can be quite different, with
some based on activities a bit like the Value Game ,
through which information can be experienced directly,
experimentally, without really knowing what conclusion one
will come to.

On further reading Latour: "A culture is simultaneously
that which makes people act, a complete abstraction
created by the ethnographer's gaze, and what is generated
on the spot by the constant inventiveness of members'
interactions." (Reassembling the Social, p 168) In other
words, 'culture', 'economy', 'the context' and 'fields' are
some of those shadowy phantoms that, like the 'social' are
nowhere to be seen, but are said to account for our coming
together. The Market of Ideas could be seen as an experiment
on how these phantoms are materialised in our associating
and, at the same time, how they can be refreshed by
injecting different practices into more 'traditional' activities
(such as the model of a congress).

[2] The continual
crossing over of values
leads to a confusing
slippage between the
Voles' of any of these
characters, where an
element of the theory
can be component,
composite or connector.
This may be because the
situation is so fluid and
difficult to consider
as a static moment.
Probably the reason
economists model.

[3] Thinking through the
agency of the individual
- what can one do? -
would locate some of the
value of the Market. If
individuals appreciate
themselves through
external associations,
they may consciously
change and strengthen
any particular social
'^connector'.

[4] From Wikipedia:
In semantics, truth
conditions are what
obtain precisely when
a sentence is true.
So, Latour may mean
that associations are
only true if they can
be traced to/through
vehicles - that is
connectors or mediators.

"~" The Value Game was
developed by Mary Anne
Francis for a Between,
an event at the South
London Gallery in
April 2007. You can find
out more about it in
Critical Practice: Issue
1 or you can watch a
video documentation
online: http://www.
a rchive.org/detai Is/
Critical_Practi ce_
Between_608

19

Filtered and condensed by Neil Cummings

Introduction

Critical Practice participated in an event called Disclosures on the 29th - 30th March
2008.

Disclosures sought to scrutinize the notion of openness across different fields of cultural

production. In many ways Disclosures aimed to extend discussions developed hy NODE.

London (2006) and Open Congress (2005).

It was organised by Anna Colin and Mia Jankowicz of Gasworks.

On Sunday 30th March Critical Practice convened a ResourceCamp to tackle the
'elephant in the room' of open organizations - money, its 'open' management, and more
generally the transparent distribution of resources.

BarCamps, from which ResourceCamp took its inspiration, are an international
network of self-organized, user-generated unconferences — open, participatory
workshop-events — often related to open source methods, social protocols, and open
data formats. Sessions are proposed and scheduled each day by attendees, typically
using white boards, paper taped to the wall, pens and a timer. Everyone is encouraged to
present for about 20 minutes with time for questions, observations and exchange.

Anyone can initiate a BarCamp, using the BarCamp wiki for guidance.

Critical Practice is an open organization, although we prefer the term self-organised

20

cluster, because we use guidelines suggested by open-organizations.org. We do this
because we recognise - after Theodor Adorno - that all art is organised, so how we
organise has to be part of our 'critical practice'. The Open Organizational guidelines are
fantastic, practical, pragmatic, born from participation and analysis of previous Open
Organizations - like Indymedia. They stress process and functionality, although to our
knowledge in none of the online documents is there any mention of money or resources,
and how to value and manage them.

This is often what Critical Practice struggles with most - how to manage our finances
and more generally our values and resources. Perhaps this is a struggle we share with
most art organizations, NGOs and self-organised groups - organizations that function
in mixed economies of funds, fees, volunteers, generosity, grants, etc. We do not have,
and would never have, enough money to pay people for their participation. And much
of what we value - creativity, conviviality, knowledge, experience, etc. - is difficult to
quantify and reimburse.

We convened the ResourceCamp to start the process of drafting guidelines for open
resource management.

We had contributions from: Kuba, Neil, Corrado and Marsha, Peter, Anna, Cinzia,
Trevor, Ian, Eileen & Ben, Jem, and Marcell.

Video documentations of all of them are available online at swarm TV

Draft Guidelines

Oscar Wilde, in Lady Windermere's Fan has Lady Windermere say "The cynic knows the
price of everything and the value of nothing."

This is a draft set of guidelines for individuals and organizations trying to practice
in an 'open' way. They are explicitly intended to facilitate the open, transparent and
accountable management of financial resources, and how they inevitably mesh with
human, social, intellectual and material resources too!

General principles

At all times, but especially at the beginning of a project,
try to be clear about your specific aims and time-frame.

Simplicity

The more cc

implicated resource

management is,

the

less likely

it is to be

i well managed.

"lexibility

The resource management process should be flexible; resources
and needs will change, frequent reviews are helpful.

Guidelines

1 Organize resource allocation around clearly articulated tasks, services, needs,
specific people, goods or projects - bearing in mind these are subject to continual
review

2 For each project: a) Estimate/allocate the appropriate resources
b) Estimate/record all the incomes (investments)

c) Estimate/record all the expenditure

d) Total your income and expenditures

e) Review

f) Make adjustments as necessary

Q Invest for future gain, and try to build resources for others.

4 Respect and evaluate different forms of income and expenditure - obviously
nothing is 'free'. And perhaps think of a 'total audit' of personal (and collective)
intellectual and emotional investment, time, energy, materials and space that make
a project possible - the opportunity costs.

f^ Appointing a resource coordinator is useful.

6 Be transparent with the available financial resources; publish the financial
resources (e.g. on a wild) and clearly describe the process by which participants
can access the funds - i.e. through the resource coordinator.
You could refer to our Budget_Tables as templates.

Be clear who has permission to act, and who is empowered to make decisions
- rough consensus is good. Try to avoid the big other of hidden power and

7

responsibility.

Q Public transparency should guard against misuse and corruption.

9

Consider each case for funding, or demand upon resources, in their own right.
Precedents, although useful can be deceptive.

1 r\ ^^^ I'esource management as a plan for future action.

11

others, especially the big other or the resource coordinator.

There is no intrinsic value, so be sensitive
cost - implicit in one choice over another.

Use points of friction as opportunities for reflection and change - changes in
practice and to the guidelines themselves.

^ O Take responsibility, and do not look to apportion blame for the mistakes of
^ Q There is no intrinsic value, so be sensitive to the sacrifice - the opportunity

22

Project budget table

Name of the project: *****
Agreed and available budget: £XXX.
Deadline for claims: XX/XX/XX.

r h

«u\m\t6mt

m

VffUfl- hfHo

1

^LnQori! UriA

I [T4lJ-4fJWM«li;|CX

m^

#

f*

I" p'"'^

state your need in the form above and describe method of
contact - email, skype, etc. Contact Coordinator, or post to
discussion page. If you need the funds advanced, it may be
possible. See Budget page for details.

1 . ' Date cl ai med ' -
this should refer to
the date on which you
submitted your claim.

2. It will real 1 y hel p
us keep track of our
cash flow if you can
let us know when you
have been paid by
completing the Date
Paid field.

3. The comments
box can be used to
expl ai n e.g . why a
payment might be
overdue (for example,
went missing in the
post) .

Annual budget table

Because Critical Practice receives funding from Chelsea College of Art and Design, we
adhere to their accounting timetable, which runs from 1st August to 31st July. To close
the financial year, all invoices and expenses are to be submitted by 20th June. Costs
incurred after the 20th June will be reliant upon Critical Practice's subsequent financial
standing. Funding allocations are made on 1st August of each financial year.

EXPfHUmjnE Illl-^MH nw' }«h^la4i ^^M^t

W^t^^^rm 'SHf-D4ili4n|&Hen|rilMfi4i:y^

Mt4u«H I 'Dwh PaU hC Din Bhinti

mm

bi^clCLun ofrif^^A^n

£ flil^ prt^l

*tm

m4a$ ijfiif$0h iUvhTcA^n

I ^momMil

fimw

z dL^ pid

Nme

}dwald*ffl

llt~Ki1pft4f1

L UBPM

rOIJhLEl£PEMQfTUftE| - j

EX

■

WISIMiC llifj^tfw YMf-fQitti^tmu l^df^T^

I Ittn'i-Filtq] tUh-d hcomt JDiiotitbn tsf^marm jAmomt I Lllmoirf+, |iTl-pnr

hwn*

[flllCPphlTI

TCfTALHCOIIE

'l « I "^^

l^^^http://criticalpracticechelsea.org/wiki/index.php/DraftjDudget_gmdelines

23

Well-being as a theme

Wrestled by

with Neil, Cinzia and Marsha

"We want to begin to redefine ''wealth" and ''progress': to judge our systems and economies
on how much they create the world we actually want, rather than how much money they
generate." - Centre for Well-being, New Economics Foundation (NEF).

Since the Betweeni'i ethics and issues of value have continued to inform and
antagonize our work. Our engagement with these themes has proved exciting, providing
a critical basis from which to resist the cold logic of finance. It has enabled us to begin to
tease money apart from the transactions embedded in our FLOSS-inspired approach to
cultural production.

The root of Economics is in 'household management'. Through the current
environmental discourse we might recover its use from finance and shift our reading
from an insular (or protectionist) 'care of the home' to an interdependent 'care of the
self (see p.l8). Here our work seems to overlap with NEF's address to the ethics of
capitalism and market economics. They are a think-and-do tank focused on political
and economic changes that engage with the needs of people as communities and
by implication the welfare of the planet . They contend that orthodox economics
measures the wrong things. As Critical Practice has explored through recent projects
such as ResourceCamp (see p.20) and the Market of Ideas (see p.l3), measuring the right
things is not easy. The qualitative value of a good, service, experience, or mode of
participation is difficult to quantify. Accounting for money fails to reflect the true cost
and full benefit and misses important elements to individual and organisational well-
being, such as happiness, security, personal development and freedom.

This spirit of ecological accounting is interesting to us, but we are wary, for fear of
expanding the reach of capital. At the Between, it was observed that when something
is measured it is absorbed into the logic of capital. So perhaps identifying but not
necessarily quantifying the multiplicity of intangible resources is the way to proceed.

Philosopher Bernard Stiegler states , to pay attention is to take care, psychic and
social care of the object of attention. This paying of attention, as investing without
interest, bridges a personal economy and links to an ethic of social and political agency.
'Well-being' sums up much of what we feel to be essential in sustaining self-organised
activity. It has evolved into something of a preoccupation, a common thread throughout
our activity of the last year, and the ground from which to build over the next.

[1] In April of 2007 Critical Practice worked with 0+1 (formerly the Artists Placement
Group (APG) and Kit Hammonds to stage a Between (a downtime event between exhibitions)
at the South London Gallery. See Critical Practice: Issue 1.

[2] See http://www.pluggingtheleaks.org, an action-planning tool which enables people to
explore together how their local economy works and to develop ideas for improving it.
[3] In the opening lecture of the London Festival of Europe 2008, philosopher Bernard
Stiegler explored what it is to pay attention. He suggested that there is a war being
fought over attention by neo-liberal commercial interests and a civil society.

24

8/09

Summary coordinated by Marsha Bradfield. Co-authored by Cinzia, Trevor, Neil and Marsha

Throughout the past year, Critical Practice has responded with enthusiasm to
a number of invitations and opportunities to contribute to art, its discourses and
organization. From Systems Art at the Whitechapel, to the London Festival of Europe
and on to Disclosures, these engagements have
provided stimulating contexts for practising
critically. Although undoubtedly invigorating,
the downside of this close attention to the
immediate 'event-in-hand' has often left us
feeling challenged in terms of commitment,
good will and responsibility.

while we intend to remain engaged for
the coming year, it feels important for Critical
Practice to develop some self-initiated projects
which, like our founding event OpenCongresSy
are indispensable in terms of the cluster's
sustainability. We started the ball rolling at our
Annual Picnic on the 26th June in St James's
Park London. Seven people met, each bringing
food, drink and three Big Ideas. We plucked one
another's suggestions from a blue fedora (one
Big Idea arrived by text message) and discussed
their connections, alternatives, feasibility, and
possible figurations. Two broad categories of
activity emerged:

1. Short-term focused events

2. Longer-term research projects

Contents

*

1

Long Term

o

1.1

Sustai nabi 1 i ty

o

1.2

■^World' Cultural Summit

o

1.3

Found a political party

o

1.4

Downti me

o

1.5

CP and the Institution

o

1.6

Deschool or Self-School

o

1.7

Market of Organisations

o

1.8

Free Libre Open Source
Software ( FLOSS ) -i nspi red
Actor Network Theory (A-N-T)

o

1.9

Audit

o

1.10

Open Source festival

*

2

Short Term

o

2.1

How to publish your own book

o

2.2

24 hour retreat

o

2.3

A (temporary) Critical
Practice shop

o

2.4

A call for proposals

o

2.5

Pay people to delete
web content

o

2.6

Ma rathon

o

2.7

Testing Budget Guidelines

o

2.8

More Pecha Kucha

o

2.9

Self-organizing Big Brother

o

2.10

Portrait of CP

o

2.11

Declarations

25

F.rithn<;in<;rn

We reconvened on the 10th July at 7pm
in the foyer cafe of Royal Festival Hall,
London to decide how to develop our
Big Ideas. The Enthusiasm index emerged
as a means of gauging the level of
commitment among Critical Practitioners:
their dedication to seeing an idea
through to completion - enthusiasm
with responsibility. Low numbers do not
necessarily indicate a lack of interest.
Rather, they signal a lack of commitment
to realizing the proposed project. It
will be interesting to see how closely
these scores relate to what transpires
(see Prediction Markets).

*

Long Term Projects

Sustainability

How can we sustain the activity that
makes Critical Practice what it is - a
reflexive structure for collaboration?
Should we strive to maintain the cluster's
basis of free' work? Self-organising
groups tend to run on generosity and
good will, often leading to exhaustion
and 'burn-out'. In what ways can art be
subject to the discourses of sustainability
(energy, resources, materials, but also
generosity and volunteering)?

Enthusiasm: 38/42 (7JJ.5.5J)

Our interest in sustainability resonates
with other themes and ideas, like
wellbeing. It also links to an emergent
interest in Care of the Self (Michel
Foucault). We will wrest the term away
from New Ageism and Green Capitalism by
widening the scope of what is perceived
as productivity.

what's unfair about the way things
are in the "world(s) of culture"? What
do people owe? In other 'disciplines'
(science, engineering, design), the

financially successful invest time and
money in the 'institutions' to which they
feel indebted - schools, universities and
research institutions. To what extent
does culture (latterly the Cultural
Industries) succeed or fail in this? Do
commercial galleries, art dealers and
wealthy artists 'skim' profit from the
public domain, expropriate its creativity
and resources?

The proposed gathering of cultural
and other organizations (galleries,
museums, auction houses, artists, agents,
NGOs, charities, etc.) will consider
the more equitable distribution of
resources. How do/might/could these
organizations (re)invest? How would this
(re) investment promote sustainability?

Enthusiasm: 13/42 (2,2,2,4,3,0)

pontical party

Stand for election in our local
constituency of Westminster, London. We
would need a manifesto. The RAQS Media
Collective offers a useful alternative i.e.
a negotiable statement of intent. Tent
States It's a form of 'flash politics' in need
of a location.

Enthusiasm: 0/42 (O.O.O.O.O.O)

A little too demonstrative and without
any real need.

Downtime

To make use of downtime: office
space, galleries, space, time, goods
(cars, laptops, tools), services and
skills, expanding on the Between and
surplus labour such as [recaptcha.net
ReCAPTCHA]. Our interests here overlap
with Sustainability and relates to O+I's
recent proposal to reanimate Betweens.

26

Caution: avoid driving increased
productivity when identifying these
spaces, when it comes to skills and
people's downtime, be mindful of
necessary pauses to avoid an increased
the risk of 'burn-out'. Think efficiency
rather than productivity.

Enthusiasm: 32/ A2 (5,6,5,5,6,5)

Seen as a component of Sustai nabi 1 i ty
and the emergent '*Care of the Self.
Also useful in identifying Vesources'.
How to recuperate individually/
organizationally?

ind the

istitution

CP as a "virus" in temporary occupation
of a museum/gallery/business/other -
institution.

How do we articulate our
relationship (s) with art institutions?
Is the 'biology' of collaboration a
useful metaphor for exploring these
interactions? Should we select a host
rather than accept to an invitation to be
hosted?

Symbiosis comes to mind, an
exchange of mutual benefit rather than
destructive self-interest. Neil offered
the example of sourdough bread; Trevor
proposed the idea of the phage. These
examples of "occupation" involve
optimising conditions through ongoing
negotiation between the host and hosted.

Enthusiasm: 33/42 (6,5,6,5,5,6)

What emerged from our discussion
was the term/concept The Biology of
Collaboration, an idea that gained
considerable enthusiasm when aligned
with Sustai nabi 1 i ty.

Deschool or Self-School

A project inspired by the deschooling
ideas of Ivan Illich and a FLOSS

approach to learning and cultural
production. "Deschooling" is a counter
instrumentalisation (or at least self-
instrumentalization) tactic that
promotes self-directed learning in
contrast to the production of "willing
workers". Moreover, taking responsibility
for one's own education raises awareness
about A) the choices one makes and B)
the implications of these choices.

Reportedly 80% of what goes on in
the classroom is discipline and control.
Is this the main lesson of school? What's
the difference between schooling and
learning? Illich suggests that learning is
more effective when learners learn what
they want to, but is this really practical?

Home schooling, Rousseau's Emile,
Maria Montessori and Rudolph Steiner
are all mentioned.

Enthusiasm: S/42 (0,1,1,2,2,2)

1^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-^^^^^^^^B

A convening that borrows the structure
of the Market of Ideas, itself modelled on
Modes of Organization.

Invite groups to exchange knowledge
and experiences about their logics
of internal organization - e.g. art
organizations (public museums and

27

galleries, commercial galleries, auction
houses, independent spaces, research
groups, academies. Mute and other
publications, self-organised groups, etc.),
commercial enterprises (corporations,
family businesses, cooperatives, legal
studios, etc.), political associations
(parties, unions, public bodies,
alternative associations, communes,
squats, flash mobs, lobbies, 'movements',
etc.) and others beyond our present
imaginings. Think institutional critique:
pragmatic research to unmask the
dynamics of power, bloodlines, cliques.
Guilds, mutual societies and so on.

Enthusiasm: 30.75/42 (7,6,3,54^5.75)

Have we done what we set out to do?
Have we done what we think we have
done? The Critical Practice wiki contains
many valuable resources. Could an audit
transform these into assets and if so,
then what?

In our general cultures of audit
(finance, audience figures, etc), we often
focus on quantity rather than quality.
But are we accounting for the "right"
values?

This audit would be part self-
reflection and part critique of cultural,
immaterial, or knowledge economies.
Cinzia's personal economy - in particular,
her attempt at a personal balance
sheet (an audit of all incomes and
expenditures), and the ResourceCamp
exemplify a deep and meaningful
auditing process. The benefits of such
models include shifts in perspective
enabling us to make better decisions
about CP's value (s).

Enthusiasm: 16.5/42 (2,2,1,4,4,3.5)

Might be a component of Sustai nabi 1 i ty

Free Libre Open Source Software
(FLOSS) -inspired Actor Network I
rheory (A-N-T)

Develop a context for exchange between
a few distinct communities (possibly
international) with a view to exploring
social(ising) technologies (e.g. common,
org, open-organizations.org, eipcp.org.
Gasworks, Timebank). Through self-
documenting and self-mapping, we might
model a FLOSS-inspired culture.

FnthnQinQm' l/d? fl f) Ci A 1 l)

We're already trying to do it.

Open Source festival

Festivals are generally 'in aid' of
something and celebrate their content.
To go beyond these two facets and
celebrate the means as much as the
benefits could be a productive rally,
we propose something that convenes
cultural practitioners and prosumers
around an open source approach to life
in general. Longer and more productive
than a conference, in a relaxed setting
(or commons) - part ResourceCamp, part
OpenCongress, part retreat.

Enthusiasm: 7/42 (0,0,3,2,0,2)

Too similar to Open Congress; already
explored at Open Source City.

28

* short Term Projects

)w to publish your own book

Publish a book on how to pubhsh your
own books.

Enthusiasm: l/42 (LO.O.O.O.O)

We already have quite
publ i shi ng .

24 hour retreat

a few resources on

A 'generative' experiment in human
behaviour: 24 hours together without
food, sleep, computers, phones, books,
newspapers or radios to develop research
using only pens, pencils, paper and our
collective and embodied knowledge/
intelligence.

what are the possibilities of doing
this as a kind of squat in public space?
what about camping on the new
"landing strip," the green space in the
Chelsea parade ground? Would it be
interesting to "retreat from the world"
by making an exhibit of ourselves in an
art institution?

Concerns: Is going hungry really
desirable - or even ethical given our
access to food? Also, in what ways does
this project affirm the stereotype of the
artist as a tortured soul who embraces
discomfort in the name of inspiration?

Enthusiasm: z6/42 (0AZZ5J)

Critical Practice might calibrate its
draft budget guidelines by identifying
relevant organizations and play-testing
these recommendations for best practice.
This could be performed as a Between.
Additionally/alternatively, we could
explore the idea of a total "profit" and
"loss" account of a year's activity. This
relates to auditing.

Enthusiasm: 29/42 (Z5,4A54)

Marathon

Interested members of Critical Practice
should "creatively" run a marathon.
Could this public activity provide
a platform for alternative forms of
engagement? We could stage a situation/
intervention in this public event while
wearing CP tracksuits...

Enthusiasm: 5/42 (0A3A0y2)

A (temporary) Critical Pract

Explore ideas of exchange and value
in a Critical Practice shop by using a
form like the Market of Ideas. We could
mine Critical Practice - its knowledge,
experience, skills, resources and wiki -
for 'goods' and seek to realise their value
through forms of exchange.

Enthusiasm: 12/42 (O.SAIAO)

-organizing Big Brother

Ten people commune for ten days with
ten video cameras. Each day each person
makes a ten-minute video diary.

Enthusiasm: 3/42 (3A0A0y0)

Ahm, no thank you.

A call for proposals from artists
interested in collaborating with Critical
Practice.

Enthusiasm: 0/42 (OAOAOfi)

29

Do more with the Pecha Kucha form.
Pecha Kucha is a mode of presentation
that originated in Japan, and asks 20
people to show 20 slides (about their
interests) for 20 seconds a slide; Pecha
Kucha is Japanese for 'the sound of
conversation.'

This could be useful for forging links
with other organizations.

Enthusiasm: 10/42 (0,0,3,2,2,3)

Pay people to delete web
content

This year, more data will be produced
than in the last 40 years combined. Much
of this results from the ease of producing
and sharing content through digital
delivery. This has implications for the
value ascribed to so-called "cultural
content." This value could be tested by
inquiring at what price (of course this is
only fiscal value) people would agree to
delete a portion of their content forever.
Fnthn^Tn<;m' 0/47 (0000 C"

A bit cyni cal /f uti 1 e and almost
impossible to implement.

A short series of short email
"declarations", fragments of a manifesto,
etc. A format of 1 of 10 has proved
effective for SwarmTV. This could be
a tool for Social Relations. Supporting
technologies include Pageflakes, RSS
feeds and other means of aggregating
cluster activity, references and interests.

Enthusiasm: 31/42 (7,6,6,4,4,5)

We appear to be well intentioned
towards a few Big Ideas, but we are
committed to taking forward:

In the long term

* Sustainability

* Downtime

* CP and the Institution refocused
as The Biology of Collaboration

* Market of Organisations

In the short term

* 24 hour retreat

* Testing Budget Guidelines

* Portrait of CP

* Declarations

Portrait of

A reflexive, complex and carefully
considered portrait of CP (in print
or otherwise), within which we all,
individually at first, follow Robin's
example and unpack our own different
relationships and positions in Critical
Practice.

Enthusias— -"" ^''"^ ^^7,7,6,5,4.5)

This is a resurrected interest in an
Elevator Pitch workshop, a previous
proposal of the Social Relations working
g roup.

http://criticalpracticechelsea.org/wiki/index.
php/Big_ldeas

30

Critical Practice includes

Joe Balfour

Robin Bhattacharya

Dr Isobel Bowditch

Marsha Bradfield

Dr Andrew Chesher

Dr Wayne Clements

Cinzia Cremona

Professor Neil Cummings

Rob Dingle

Ian Drysdale

Spring Exprit

Dr Mary Anne Francis

Trevor Giles

Mike Knowlden

Jem Mackay

Corrado Morgana

Wei-Ho Ng

Dr Tim O'Riley

Michaela Ross

Tom Trevatt

Neal White

Manuela Zechner

in addition to those participants

registered to our wiki and mailing list

Pa rtners

Chelsea College of Art and Design

European Alternatives

Future Archive

Gasworks

ICFAR

New Economics Foundation

Open-0rganizations.org

Thinking Through Practice

Critical Practice: Issue 2

Coordinated by Cinzia Cremona
Editorati: Cinzia, Trevor, Michaela,
Marsha and Neil
Proof-read by Michaela Ross
Designed by Trevor Giles

Critical Practice is partly funded by Chelsea College of Art and Design and
runs on the generosity of its participants

This is a Free Cultural Work licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Share Alike 3.0 UK: England & Wales License - http://creativecommons.org/
li censes/by- sa/3.0/

http://freedomdefined.org/Definiti on

Gentium (c) SIL Open Font License (OFL) version 1.1 http://www.sil.org/
NotCou ri er-sans (OFL) Constant VZW http://ospublish.constantvzw.org

Eco-friendly printing by http://www.alocalprinter.com

@0@

J OPEN FONT
rail LICENSE

/V Recycled /\

«%o?:»

.<^SJ'^

Crit-i-cal I'kntikaii

[f. L. critic-US (see CRITIC a.) + -AL]

ORIGIN.mid 16th cent. (in the sense [relating to the crisis of a

disease] ): from late Latin criticus (see critic). (Oxford American

Dictionaries)

FUNCTION adjective

'relating to, or being, a state in which a measurement or point at
which some qualityy property^ or phenomenon suffers a definite
change' (Merriam- Webster Dictionary)

1. expressing comments or judgments: Some members were critical
of the body's decision to proceed given the....

• Criticality can be maintained. (Or can it?) It is reflective,
vigilant, persistently aware, (self) conscious, a series of
moments repeated over time. He aspired to greater criticality
because...

2. (of a situation or problem) having the potential to become
disastrous; at a point of crisis: It was getting late, discensus seemed
inevitable, the situation became increasingly critical and ...

•or

It is the moment of crisis, a disturbance, a feeling of unease
articulated through the body, a watching and waiting: About noon,
however, she began-but with a caution— a dread of disappointment which
for some time kept her silent...to fancy, to hope she could perceive a slight
amendment in her sisters pulse;-she waited, watched, and examined it
again and again;-and at last....CSense and Sensibility']. Austen)

3. Critical Practice, critical thinking as a practice: Biology of
collaboration,...

• Not a duality {Critical against Practice), not linear progress
{better Critical, better Practice), no certainties {we have been so
Critical in our Practice...), but experiments, openness, reflections,
collaborations, trust, shared language, shared actions.

4. Mathematics & Physics relating to or denoting a point of
transition from one state to another;.

• (of a nuclear reactor or fuel) maintaining a self-sustaining
chain reaction : The reactor is due to go critical after....

Synonyms: ANALYTICAL, CAPTIOUS, CARPING, CENSORIOUS,
CRUCIAL, DECISIVE, ESSENTIAL, EVALUATIVE, EXPLANATORY,
EXPOSITORY FAULTFINDING, HYPERCRITICAL, IN-THE-BALANCE,
INTERPRETIVE, KEY, PARAMOUNT, PICKY, SERIOUS, RISKY,
PERILOUS, VITAL

Antonyms: COMPLEMENTARY, SAFE, UNIMPORTANT

/are braided through time
/ and through overlapping
; vocabularies - from Greek and
:' Latin etymologies, via medieval
renaming. Renaissance (re-
births), re- I 1 1 umi nati ons, and
more recent medleys.

/ familiar perceptions of
criticality and posit new
hybrids. We recognize the
uncertainty of Critical
Illness, the urgency of
Critical Care, the judgement of
Critical Thinking within our
embodied Critical Practice.

contingent, responsive and site
specific. Critical Thinking may
involve a literal approach
in one context, a figurative
approach in another and/or a
combination of these and other
approaches under different
ci rcumstances .

■■ embodied in collaboration.
Critical Practice is more
practical than idealist. It is
dynamic, moving from certainty

\ to uncertainty.

search brings up Critical
illness insurance. Criticality
is something sudden, created by
the demands of the moment the
point before the outcome when
life hangs in the balance.

from other forms of practice
involving repetition. This
is because Critical Practice
is more about deconstructing
assumptions than perfecting a
ski 1 1 .

/maintained over time. As
/ Practice follows Critical
follows Practice in an
accumulation of understanding,
the slippage of actions that
provoke unease with what we
thought we knew keeps us
movi ng .
or

In collaboration, like members
of a body, we are dislodged
out of our certainties. We
compromise on (my for yours,
your for mine) criticality, to
stimulate further reflection.

[1] Is criticality a quality, an essential characteristic of a person or approach?

[2] Is criticality a property, a trait that can be adopted (or abandoned) at will?

[3] Is criticality a phenomenon, an observable event?

[4] Criticality as the censoring of oneself and others: how can criticality be generative rather than

restrictive, and is this best achieved by using the ^crisis' definition of critical or an alternative

notion emphasising its ongoing, reflective nature?

But what is ^Critical Practice'? How productive is habitual criticality? How do we move from
Critical to Practice? How do we shift into Critical Praxis? What is embodied criticality?